Hoglan v. Mathena et al, No. 7:2018cv00140 - Document 27 (W.D. Va. 2019)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Senior Judge Jackson L. Kiser on 6/6/2019. (slt)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
CLERK' S OFFICEU.s.DIST.COURT ' ATDANVILLE.VA FILED IN TH E UN IT ED STAT ES D ISTR ICT C O U R T FO R TH E W E STER N D ISTR ICT O F W R G IN IA R O A N O K E D IV ISIO N JUN 25 1219 JULI A C. UDLEM G ERK sv, à CL EPO DOUGLAS A.HO GLAN , Plaintiff, CA SE N O .7:18CV 00140 V. M EM OM NDUM OPINION R.M ATHENA,c K , By: H on.Jackson L .K iser SeniorUnited StatesDistrictJudge D efendants. Theplaintiff,DouglasA .H oglan,aVirginiainm ateproceedingproK ,sledthiscivilrights actiontmder42U.S.C.j 1983,allegingthatprison ox cialsalteredhisinmatetreatmentplan in retaliation for pastlawsuits he had filed aboutprison policies. Atissue in this mem orandtun opinion isthe partialmotion to dism issfled by defendantsM .Elam ,S.M assenburg,A.Pogue, K.M .Crowder-Austin,andLovern (tsdefendants''),andHoglan'sresponsetotheirmotion.After review oftherecord,Iwillgrantthe defendants'motion. Hoglan'sclaim sagainstthe rem aining defendants,which arenotchallengçd in themotionto dismiss,willgo forward. lnthefallof2017,Hoglan wasconfined atGreen Rock CorrectionalCenter.During acell search on October11,2017,oo cersconfiscatednum erousitemsfrom hiscellthatincludednude orsemi-nudeimagesasviolatingVirginiaDepm mentofCorrections(&çVDOC'')policy.Hoglan Hoglan v. Mathena et al filed grievances aboutthe incidentthatwere ruled unfounded,and theserulingsw ere upheld on Doc. 27 appeal.DefendantsElam ,Pogue,Crowder-Austin,and M assenburg receivedancl/orresponded to Hèglan's grievances and appeals. Dockets.Justia.com Offcers conducted another cell search on October 17,2017. Thereafter,Hoglan was placed in segregated coninement withoutbeing given notice or a reason forthis action. He rem ained in ' thatstatuswithoutany ofhispersonalpossessionsforseveraldays. UnderVDOC policy,defendantLovern wasresponsibleforconducting an InstitutionalClassification Authority (&&ICA'')hearingon October19,2017,concerningHoglan'sstatuschange.XoICA hearingwas conducted, however. Hoglan was released to the generalpopulation on October 24, 2017. Liberally construed, Hoglan claim s that Elam , Pogue, Crowder-Austin, mld M assenburgresponded unsatisfactorily to grievancesand appealsaboutthe October11,2017 cell search;mld (2) Lovern failed'to provide due process protections required by VDOC policy concem ing segregation placem enton thatdate. These defendants m ove to dismissthe claims tmderRule 12(b)(6)oftheFederalRplesofCivilProcedure,and Hoglanhasresponded,making themotion ripefordisposition. II. A districtcourtshould dismissaclaim underRule 12(b)(6)if,accepting a11well-pleaded allegationsin thecomplaintastnzeand drawinga11reasonablefactualinferencesin theplaintiff's favor,the complaintdoesnotallegeStenough factsto statea claim to reliefthatisplausible on its face.''BellAtl.Cop .v.Twomblv,550U.S.544,570(2007).tû(A)plaintiffsobligationtoprovide thegrolmdsofhisentitlem enttoreli' efrequiresm orethan labelsand conclusions, and aformulaic recitation ofthe elementsofa cause ofaction willnotdo.'' 1d.at555.1 M oreover, a courtneed notl'acceptthelegalconclusionsdrawn from thefacts''orS'acceptastrueunwarrantedinferences, llnreasonable conclusions,orargllments.'' E.Shore M lds..Inc.v.J.D .Assocs.Ltd.P'ship,213 F.3d 175,180(4th Cir.2000). 1 I have omitted internal quotation m arks,alterations, and citations here and throughout this opinion,unlessotherwisenoted. To stateaclaim tmderj 1983,aplaintiffmustallegetitheviolationofarightsecuredby the Constitution and lawsofthe United States,and mustshow thatthe alleged deprivation was committedbyaperson actingtmdercolorofstatelaw.''W estv.Atldns,487U.S.42,48(1988). Hoglan mustshow directpersonalinvolvem entby each individualdefendant. Trulock v.Freeh, 275F.3d 391,402 (4th Cir.2001)(notingthatliability in acivilrightscaseis'tpersonal,based upon each defendant'sown constitutionalviolations');seealsoGarrachtvv.Va.Dep'tofCorr., 52F.3d 1274,1280(4thCir.1995). The defendants argue that Hoglan fails to identify what speciscally Elnm , Pogue, M assenbtlrg, and Crow der-Austin did personally to participate in the alleged violations of Hoglan'sconstim tionalrights.Thesedefendantsalso arguethatHoglanhasnotdem onstratedthe necessary elements to hold them liable as supervisory officials for the alleged constitutional violationsofotherprisonofficials.SeeW ilkinsv.M ontcomery,751F.3d214,226(4thCir.2014). The defendants contend thatHoglan hasnotstated factsshowing thattheiractions constituted a SGm oving force''behind the alleged violationsofhisrights.Jonesv.W ellhnm ,104 F.3d 620,627 (4th Cir.1997).Finally,thedefendantsrelyonthefactthatinmateshaveno constitutionalright to pM icipate in aprison grievanceprocedtlre orto receive aparticularresponseto a grievance or appeal.SeeBookerv.S.C.Dep'tofCorr.,855F.3d533,541(4th Cir.2017). AstoHoglan'sclaimsagainstdefendantLovern,thedefendantsarguethat5 1983 isnot thepropercause ofaction toraiseviolationsofVDOC policy.W ellerv.Den'tofSocialServices, 901F.2d387,392(4th Cir.1990)(ûç(I)tiswellsettledthatviolationsofstate1aw cnnnotprovide the basis fora due process c1aim.''). A state's failtlre to adhere to its own procedures and regulationsisnotafederaldueprocessissuenorisitactionableunderj 1983.SeeRicciov.Ctv. ofFairfax.Va.,907 F.2d 14j9,1469 (4th Cir.1990). Furthermore,the defendantscontend that the conditionsHoglan faced whilebriefly confined in segregation did notgiveriseto a federally protectedliberty interesttriggeringfederalproceduralprotections.SeeSandinv.Cormer,515U.S. 472,484,487 (1995)(holding thatafederally protected liberty interestarisesonly wherethe deprivation im posed nm ollnts to an iGatypical and significant hardship''or that it çtinevitably affectgsqthedtlrationofhissentence''). In response to the defendants' motion to dism iss, Hoglan 'ldeclines to put forth any mp lmentsagainsttheDefendants'm otion to dism iss''astotheclaim sagainstElnm ,M assenburg, Pogue,Crowder-Austin,andLovern.(Resp.1EECFNo.21j.)Accordingly,forthereasonsstated inthedefendants'motion,IconcludethatHoglan hasfailedto statej 1983claimsagainstthese defendants an' d thattheirm otion to dism iss mustbe granted. An appropriate order willissue herewith. TheClerk isdirected to send copiesofthism rmorandllm opinionandaccom panyingorder toplaintiffand tocounselofrecord forthedefendants. M' IXREDthisîdGdayorlune,2019. e E O R U N ITED STA TES D ISTRICT JU D GE 4
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
